Ex Parte Petersen et al - Page 37


             Appeal No. 2006-2627                                                            Page 37                
             Application No. 09/947,833                                                                             

             Table 2, column 10 of Yim38, alleging that compositions comprising calcium sulfate were                
             “non-flowable within 15 minutes.”  Brief, page 639.  Appellants’ assertions are not                    
             consistent with the evidence of record.  First, O’Leary’s compositions are not limited to a            
             liquid state.  As discussed above, O’Leary defines flowable as including compositions                  
             that are “shape-sustaining”, “e.g., those which behave like putty.”  O’Leary, column 3,                
             lines 30-36.  Further contrary to appellants’ suggestion, Table 2 of Yim is consistent with            
             O’Leary’s “shape-sustaining but readily deformable”40 composition, for Table 2 of Yim                  
             describes compositions that are “shapable”, “remoldable” and “malleable” after 15                      
             minutes.  Yim, column 10, Table 2, Key #5.  Accordingly, I am not persuaded by                         
             appellants’ argument.                                                                                  
                    Furthermore, nothing in appellants’ claim 1 requires that the claimed composition               
             exhibit a particular physical state (e.g., runny, moldable or hard), nor does appellants’              
             claim 1 require a particular “set-up” time (e.g., slow, fast or within 15 minutes).  In my             
             opinion, appellants’ arguments relating to the physical state or set-up time of the                    
             composition are not commensurate in scope with their claimed invention.                                
                    For these same reasons, I am not persuaded by appellants’ assertion (Brief,                     
             page 7) that they “have discovered that the claimed plasticizing substance [e.g.,                      
             hydroxypropyl methylcellulose] can forestall the calcium sulfate hemihydrate hardening                 
                                                                                                                    
             38 I note that the data presented in Table 2 of Yim is directed to the ability of calcium sulfate to improve
             the handling characteristics of a composition such as that taught by U.S. Patent No. 5, 171,579 (e.g., a
             composition comprising blood).  While this is one embodiment of Yim’s disclosure, as discussed above,  
             the bone graft composition disclosed by Yim at column 8, lines 16-28 does not contain blood.           
             39 At page 6 of the Brief appellants assert “Yim itself describes how quickly a calcium sulfate hemihydrate
             solution loses flowability in Table 2 in column 10.  Note that each tested composition appearing in Table 2
             was non-flowable within 15 minutes.”                                                                   
             40 O’Leary, column 3, lines 30-36.                                                                     





Page:  Previous  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007